MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3143323511 · doi:10.53542/jass.v10i3.3595

Restrictive Conditions for Free Uses of Copyrighted Materials under Omani Law and Their Implications for Users’ of Copyrighted Materials

2020· article· en· W3143323511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saleh Hamed Albarashdi, Muhammad Masum Billah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arts and Social Sciences [JASS] · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)LegislationPermissionLegislatureLawCopyright lawFair useOrder (exchange)Political scienceConventionBusinessExclusive rightCopyright ActWork (physics)Intellectual propertyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Omani Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law of 2008 contains a list of exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright holders. These exceptions allow people to copy and use copyrighted materials in certain cases without paying any fees or obtaining any permission from the copyright holders. The exceptions cover free uses for purposes like teaching, education, quotation in another work, dissemination of news etc. However, the Omani Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law puts many conditions for such free uses. Some of these conditions mirror similar conditions under the Berne Convention and other copyright conventions to which Oman is a party. Other conditions under Omani law are more restrictive than those that appear under international conventions. These additional conditions restrict the scope of free uses of copyrighted materials in Oman. Yet, some countries like USA and Canada, despite their being parties to the same international conventions, have much wider exceptions under their national legislation. The paper, therefore, recommends that Oman should follow the legislative approach of those countries in order to widen the scope of copyright exceptions for the benefits of users of copyrighted materials in Oman.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Arts and Social Sciences [JASS]Same topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207